Academic Affairs Manual (ACD)
![[horizontal rule]](acdhr.gif){kind=small}
| Effective: 4/14/1997 |
Revised: 11/1/2002 |
![[ASU logo]](asu.gif) |
ACD 506–11: Post-Tenure Review Process |
Purpose
To advise faculty of consistent and appropriate rewards for continued excellent performance once tenure has been awarded, and to provide a formal system to help improve performance in cases in which performance has become unsatisfactory
Sources
Arizona Board of Regents Policy Manual - 6–201
Academic Senate
Policy
I. Introduction
Tenure is an institution developed to assure that individual faculty members can pursue the discovery and dissemination of knowledge and make unique contributions through creative activity. Tenure at Arizona State University, Tempe campus, is awarded only after an individual has completed an education appropriate to his or her field, has successfully completed a lengthy probationary period, and has been able to demonstrate excellence through his or her contributions to a disciplinary field through teaching, research and publication, creative activity, and service. The process by which an individual is granted tenure at ASU is a process that assures not only demonstrated excellent performance but also the promise of continued excellence.
Once awarded by the Board of Regents through the president, tenure creates a legitimate claim of entitlement to continued employment unless the tenured faculty member is dismissed or released for just cause, or reorganization caused by budgetary reasons or programmatic changes. According to board policy, “the university bears the burden of proving the existence of just cause by a preponderance of evidence” (Arizona Board of Regents Policy Manual, - 6-201, “Conditions of Faculty Service”).
Since an individual faculty member who has been awarded tenure has demonstrated excellent performance and represents a large investment on the part of the university, it is in the best interest of the university to do everything within reason to assure the performance of the tenured faculty member remains at least at a satisfactory level. In the case of continued competence, as defined by satisfactory or better performance, such competence should be consistently and appropriately awarded. If an individual’s performance becomes unsatisfactory, the faculty member has a responsibility, shared with the university, to improve performance. Every attempt should be made to support the faculty member in this performance improvement. Only after the improvement process has clearly failed should dismissal be considered.
Performance evaluations are rigorous processes conducted by an individual faculty member’s peers, reviewed by the unit and university administrators, and occasionally reviewed by qualified individuals outside of the university. According to Board of Regents’ policy, an annual performance evaluation of an individual must be conducted by his/her peers, and by the department or unit head. This evaluation must also be reviewed by the college dean. At ASU, this annual performance evaluation process normally covers the most recent three-year period and is a thorough review of the individual faculty member’s contributions through teaching, research or creative activity, and university and community service. The specific details of these performance evaluations are included in unit bylaws and in the college performance-based compensation plans. Both are approved by the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost of the University.
Additional major reviews are conducted for promotion from assistant professor to associate professor, for awarding of tenure, and for promotion from associate professor to professor. In each of these reviews, the teaching, research and creative activity, and service aspects of the entire career of the faculty member are reviewed by peers, unit and college administrators, a university committee, and the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost of the University. In addition, the individual’s scholarly research and creative activity are reviewed by qualified individuals outside of the university. Independently, a program review of an academic unit is conducted at least every seven years, which once again provides a thorough evaluation of the contribution made by the faculty member to the success of his/her unit. This review is both a self study by the unit involved and an outside review by qualified consultants. In the context of the unit program review, performance of an individual faculty member is reviewed primarily to gauge contribution to the success of the programs within the unit.
What is presently missing from the performance evaluation system is consistent and appropriate rewards for continued excellent performance once tenure has been awarded, and a formal system to help improve performance of those cases where performance has become unsatisfactory. The following process described herein is intended to accomplish these objectives.
II. Principles for Post-Tenure Review at ASU
The post-tenure review process at Arizona State University is based on nine principles. These principles were approved by a unanimous vote of the Academic Senate on April 15, 1996 as Senate Motion #18 (1995–96).
- Value of Tenure Principle. Tenure in American universities is valued and must be protected by providing greater accountability through a positive, constructive, forward-looking, peer-based, and faculty driven post-tenure review system.
- Effort Principle. The post-tenure review should not divert a substantial amount of faculty time from teaching, research, and service activities.
- Burden of Proof Principle. The burden of proof for tenured faculty is with the university to demonstrate that the faculty is an unsatisfactory performer.
- Cost Principle. The plan for post-tenure review should not necessitate a major legislative appropriation in order to be implemented.
- Reliance on Annual Reviews Principle. Consistent with Board of Regents’ policy, administrative and faculty review of performance, judged on an annual cycle, will serve as the basis for identifying cases in need of attention.
- Universality of Concern Principle. Any and each incidence of overall unsatisfactory performance will be addressed. Performance evaluation is based upon agreed-to criteria related to teaching, research, and service.
- Progressive Concern Principle. Repeated instances of unsatisfactory performance will result in college-level involvement in the faculty improvement plan.
- Performance Improvement Principle. A key element in post-tenure review is performance improvement, which could be entered voluntarily by anyone seeking to improve, or involuntarily (i.e., mandatory) by receiving unsatisfactory performance ratings in the annual performance evaluations.
- Ongoing Administrative Evaluation of Process Principle. Each year the dean, in consultation with the unit head and two faculty from another unit in the college, will evaluate the review process and the performance ratings of the faculty of the college. The dean is responsible for providing independent verification that the annual review process effectively measures performance.
III. Post-Tenure Review Process at Arizona State University
The post-tenure review process at ASUM is based on these nine principles. Exhibit ACD 506–11A contains a summary of major steps in the process. These steps are not necessarily separate or sequential. It is important to note that in no way does this post-tenure review process eliminate the rights of the faculty member to appeal an evaluation or the process by which the evaluation was formed.
Step 1. Performance Evaluation
Three reviews are conducted that could lead to an enhanced review and/or a performance improvement plan.
- Annual Review. The first review is the Annual Performance Evaluation, based on the Performance-Based Compensation Plan approved by the Academic Senate in January of 1995 and by the Board of Regents in the summer of 1995. In the Annual Performance Evaluation, the unit head and/or peers from the individual faculty member’s unit evaluate performance, normally covering the immediately preceding 36-month period with substantial emphasis on the current year, for evaluation of teaching. Faculty are given ratings on teaching, research and creative activity, and service, and a composite rating for overall performance. The criteria and methods to determine these ratings are developed by the unit and approved by the dean and the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost of the University.
- Dean’s Level Audit. In addition to the dean’s normal participation in the annual review process, each year the dean of the college and two faculty from other units in the college will evaluate the unit’s evaluation process by reviewing the performance ratings of 20 percent of the college faculty. This review will be conducted with the advice of the unit head as well. In this way, all faculty will have their performance evaluations reviewed by the dean at least once every five years, and the dean will monitor the process to assure that the performance ratings reflect actual performance. The result of this review by the dean is to validate the process and maybe to confirm or to refer the case back to the unit’s personnel committee for a reevaluation.
- Academic Program Review. Once every seven years, or more often as accreditation requires, program reviews are conducted to determine the effectiveness of programs in individual units. Included in these program reviews are assessments by qualified consultants, including academic experts, recent program graduates, and community representatives, as described in the Program Review Process at Arizona State University at Tempe campus. Each faculty member within the unit is reviewed to determine to what extent he or she is contributing to the success of programs in the unit. Should the program review determine that a faculty member is not contributing to the success of the program, a recommendation will be made that the unit’s personnel committee conduct a further review of that faculty member. The process of academic program reviews is addressed in a separate document, Academic Program Reviews, Policies and Procedures.
Step 2. Ways to Initiate an Enhanced Review
Two ways are available to faculty to undergo enhanced reviews of their performance, voluntary or mandatory. The first of these is based on the faculty member’s desire to improve performance even though it is satisfactory or better, the desire to gain information regarding the possibility of being promoted to professor, or for any other developmental reason. The faculty member need only request an enhanced review.
In the spirit of the Universality of Concern, the Performance Improvement, and the Progressive Concern Principles, any rating of unsatisfactory in any area of assigned responsibility will result in a developmental plan at the unit level. It is imperative that the individual unit have specific, measurable definitions of satisfactory performance, and that the individual faculty member’s mix of assigned responsibilities and their corresponding weights be taken into consideration. This developmental plan will have specific goals for the faculty member to achieve, within one year, with appropriate interim monitoring and feedback. The purpose of this developmental plan is to help the faculty member improve performance. A second consecutive unsatisfactory performance rating in the same area will result in an overall unsatisfactory rating.
A mandatory enhanced review will occur under two conditions. First, if a faculty member receives an overall unsatisfactory rating on the annual performance evaluation, an enhanced review will occur. An overall unsatisfactory rating may result from two or more areas of unsatisfactory or may result from one area of unsatisfactory (for example, teaching) depending on the emphasis assigned to that area in the goal-based agreement and the extent of the deficiency. Second, an enhanced review will be the result if it is determined through the program review that a faculty member is not contributing to the success of the program and the unit’s personnel committee agrees with this assessment.
A faculty member who meets the criteria for a mandatory enhanced review could be exempted from such a review for extenuating circumstances, such as personal or family leave responsibilities (see ACD 702, “Health-Related Leaves”). This exemption would be requested by the unit head and approved by the dean. It is important to note that in no way does this post-tenure review process eliminate the rights of a faculty member to appeal an evaluation or the process by which the evaluation was formed.
Step 3. Mandatory Enhanced Review
The mandatory enhanced review is a more thorough review of the faculty member’s record undertaken to verify the results of the process, verify the unsatisfactory performance ratings, and/or provide information for improvement. Upon completion of this review, a report will be forwarded to the Dean with recommendations of how to proceed. The enhanced review will be performed by a committee, composed of a three-person faculty committee appointed by the dean, or a three-person subcommittee from the College Personnel Committee, selected by the chair. The affected faculty member would choose one of the two committee options. The results of the enhanced review will be forwarded to the faculty member, the unit head, and the dean.
The results of the mandatory review will fall into one of the following three categories:
- The faculty member has met reasonable expectations, in which case the unsatisfactory performance rating will be changed to satisfactory and the review is concluded. This result should also trigger a special review by the dean of the process used to reach the unsatisfactory rating.
- Some strengths and weaknesses are identified, but the deficiencies are not substantial or chronic. In this situation, a recommendation will be made to the unit’s personnel committee that the performance rating be changed to satisfactory, the review is concluded, but recommendations for development may be made to help overcome the identified weaknesses. It may be that the weights that were established in the annual review process need to be changed to reflect the contribution of the faculty member.
- Substantial and chronic deficiencies are identified and the unsatisfactory performance ratings are upheld. This result will lead to a Performance Improvement Plan which will need to be agreed upon by the faculty member, the unit head and the dean. The plan will be developed and implemented no later than the semester following receipt of the overall unsatisfactory evaluation.
At this point in the post-tenure review process, the faculty member has the right to appeal an evaluation or the process by which the evaluation was formed.
Step 4. Performance Improvement Plan
The Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) is formulated by the unit head and the dean with the assistance of the faculty member. The PIP must identify, as a minimum, the following points:
- the specific deficiencies that led to the unsatisfactory performance
- specific reasonable goals or outcomes that are needed to remedy the deficiencies
- an outline of activities to be undertaken to achieve the outcomes
- a one-year performance improvement plan that addresses teaching
and service deficiencies in general
- In those rare circumstances where the nature of the deficiency cannot be fully remedied in one year, the duration of the plan may go beyond one year. For a research deficiency or the research component of an overall deficiency, the duration of the plan shall be as brief as is reasonable, but under no circumstances will it be longer than three years. Any plan that exceeds one year must be approved by the executive vice president and provost of the university.
- milestones with specific criteria so that progress toward goals
or outcomes can be measured periodically (at least annually)
and
- reasonable resources that can be made available to assist the faculty member in the achievement of goals. Such resources include, but are not limited to, faculty development, employee assistance, opportunities for funding, and others.
The Performance Improvement Plan, once developed, will be agreed to by the faculty member, the unit head, and the dean. This agreement will not eliminate the rights of the faculty member to use the grievance process available in ACD 501, “Conditions of Faculty Service.” Once the plan is agreed to, the faculty member’s performance will be evaluated against the PIP rather than through the normal annual review process. If the faculty member chooses not to enter into a performance improvement plan, the appropriate administrator may begin the process for dismissal for just cause. The process that will be followed is outlined in ACD 501, “Conditions of Faculty Service.”
Step 5. Monitoring and Follow-Up
Once a Performance Improvement Plan has been established, progress will be monitored with specific regard to the milestones mentioned in Step 4, part 5. The three-person committee chosen in Mandatory Enhanced Review section of this plan has the responsibility to monitor progress. At the completion of each milestone date, progress will be reported to the unit head and the dean. Should the appropriate progress toward goals as measured by the specific criteria previously agreed to not be met, the dean may exercise the option to initiate the dismissal for cause process.
Step 6. Completion of the Performance Improvement Plan
The PIP is completed when the faculty member has achieved the goals or outcomes specified in Step 4, or when the time allotted to the plan has expired. If the PIP is completed successfully, that is, goals or outcomes are satisfied, the faculty member will return to the normal annual performance evaluation process. If the goals and outcomes are not achieved by the expiration of the PIP, the appropriate administrator will exercise the option to initiate the dismissal for cause process. In either case, a final report will be made by the unit head to the faculty member and the dean. It is important to note that in no way does this post-tenure review process eliminate the rights of a faculty member to use the grievance process outlined in ACD 501, “Conditions of Faculty Service.”
Documenting the Impact of Post-Tenure Review
The following information will be provided to the regents by the university to document the implementation of the policy:
- Tenure Audit
The annual tenure audit will include information on the outcomes of post-tenure reviews.
- Dean’s Level Audit Report
On an annual basis, the university will provide information on the outcomes of the Dean’s Level Audit procedure.
- Academic Program Review Report
Reports made to the regents on the outcomes of academic program reviews will include summary data on the evidence about the appropriateness of faculty contributions to the unit’s and university’s missions.
Exhibit
Some manual exhibits are available only in PDF format. An Adobe Acrobat Reader plug-in is required to view these PDF files. See our main policies and procedures page if you require this plug-in.
ACD 506–11A, Outline of Arizona State University’s Post-Tenure Review Plan
skip navigation bar